For you Bruno Senna fans
15th January 2012, 23:14 at 11:14 pm #130738
Same article different sources:
Interesting what he says about Indycars, but that’s not the main point of the article.15th January 2012, 23:26 at 11:26 pm #190003
Uh, I’m sick of hearing about Bruno Senna. I just had some guy on another forum tell me that Senna beat Vitaly Petrov despite Petrov out-qualifying him (5-3), out-racing him (5-1 in races they both finished) and outscoring him (5 points to 2) in the eight races they had. Apparently, the ability to be beaten by a lowly-rated driver makes Senna absolutely fantastic.15th January 2012, 23:32 at 11:32 pm #190004
Give the guy a break though @prisoner-monkeys, I think he deserves an F1 seat more than at least two drivers that have contracts this year…15th January 2012, 23:51 at 11:51 pm #190005
I think Senna has had more than enough chances to prove himself, and has so far failed to show any potential. If he weren’t Ayrton Senna’s nephew, most people wouldn’t care less about what happened to him.16th January 2012, 0:05 at 12:05 am #190006
@Prisoner Monkeys If you are so sick and tired of him don’t read the topic then.16th January 2012, 1:16 at 1:16 am #190007
I still stand by 2010’s HRT not being a great car to use to form any opinion on anybody, and him not doing too bad at Renault considering he was drafted in mid-season.16th January 2012, 1:32 at 1:32 am #190008
I still stand by 2010′s HRT not being a great car to use to form any opinion on anybody
It was good enough for Karun Chandhok to secure two 14th places, thereby securing 11th in the WCC for Hispania.16th January 2012, 1:36 at 1:36 am #190009
Chandhok’s 14th places were down to him being in the right time at the right place, not because of his driving skill. Prisoner Monkey you just look at the statistics and nothing else.16th January 2012, 1:37 at 1:37 am #190010
It’s quite funny that you still use that same argument every time despite it always being immediately debunked whenever you’ve brought it up, and without ever addressing that the argument has been made void.
“True, Its also true that Bruno was ahead of Karun in both of those races untill his car failed.
Its also true that Bruno was the only HRT driver in 2010 to qualify ahead of one of the other 2 new teams, Twice.”
“You just used the ‘Chandock got two 14th places’ argument while ignoring that somebody else had completely negated the relevance of it.
And let me negate it further- by being on the grid at all and having a car that didn’t break down is the only reason Chandock got those 14th places. In Australia he finished 14th. And last. In Monaco he was running 14th and 2nd to last and was taken out by Trulli at the end of the race. Badoer could have performed just as well. Chandock was simply lucky to get finishes (or in Monaco near enough to be classified) in the two highest attrition races.”16th January 2012, 1:56 at 1:56 am #190011
The only reason why I keep bringing it up is because from where I’m sitting, nobody has ever made a valid counter-argument. I reject your claim that it has been “debunked” at all.
Its also true that Bruno was the only HRT driver in 2010 to qualify ahead of one of the other 2 new teams, Twice
And if a Grand Prix weekend ended on Saturday, I’d maybe accept this as a valid argument. Qualifying position counts for nothing if you don’t do well in the race, as Senna hismelf proved at Spa last year.
by being on the grid at all and having a car that didn’t break down is the only reason Chandock got those 14th places
But at the end of the day, he still got those places – and that’s all that history will remember.16th January 2012, 2:04 at 2:04 am #190012
But you are saying that Chandhok gets those places through his driving skill he did, as matt90 states Bruno was ahead of him until his car failed on him. That proves better driving skill, even though Chandhok got the place at the end of the race. And ‘qualifying means nothing’. Surely being higher up the grid is better? If we go by your theory then why don’t the top teams bother to qualify and save tyres and end up last on the grid?
You have serious bias against Senna, which is unfair and your arguments have been debunked on a number of topics on this forum.16th January 2012, 2:12 at 2:12 am #190013
I honestly don’t see how you can use the argument that Chandock did better, even when somebody points out that the very results you mention would have gone to Senna had it not been for his misfortune. And you’ve pretty much ignored the point that Chandock came last and almost last in those races, so he was simply lucky to finish 2 high attrition races rather than just the one that Senna finished.16th January 2012, 2:37 at 2:37 am #190014
the very results you mention would have gone to Senna had it not been for his misfortune
That’s a highly-questionable argument at best. Karun Chandhok finished 14th in Australia. And yes, Senna retired with a mechanical problem – the hydraulics. But he retired on lap 4 of 58, so to suggest that he would have finished ahead of Chandhok is ridiculous. Especially considering that Chandhok was only about eight hundreths of a second behind Senna in qualifying. Chandhok’s second 14th place came in Monaco. While Senna’s retirement was once again mechanical – hydraulics again – it was on lap 58 of 78. There were still a good 20 laps to go. 20 laps of Monaco.
Whatever the case, you seem to have misinterpreted my intentions. My point is not that Chandhok out-performed Senna when they were team-mates. Rather, I’m simply highlighting that despite being a glorified shopping trolley, it was possible to do things with the F110, and therefore, people who claim that Senna’s 2010 season should be disregarded have no leg to stand on. Senna should be judged on 2010 and 2011 rather than 2011 as some of his supporters have been calling for.
And if Senna was ahead of Chandhok when he retired from both races, that just goes to further my point: that the F110 was good enough to be considered a car.16th January 2012, 2:52 at 2:52 am #190015
You forget that Chandhok was last in both of the grand prixs where he finished 14th. Senna is a better driver when considered over the entire season and in comparison with the two in lower formulae such as GP2.
Chandhok got those places out of luck rather than driving skill so you can stop harping on about this result.
Driving skill isn’t only about where the driver ends up at the end of the Grand Prix. Pace over one lap also has something to do with it and Senna was also superior here, twice qualifying higher than one of the new teams.16th January 2012, 2:58 at 2:58 am #190016
@jackhider – what are you having trouble understanding here? This has nothing to do with comapring Senna against Chandhok. Some of Senna’s fans are saying “Bruno Senna should only be judged on his 2011 results because in 2010, he was not driving a very good car”, mostly because they feel Senna “deserves” a second chance despite the fact that he’s already had two (which is more than mroe drivers get). However, the fact that Karun Chandhok was able to get results with that same car – regardless of how those results were achieved – suggests that the Hispania F110 did have some inherent value to it. The team did, after all, finish second-last as opposed to last in 2010. Because that car was capable of finishing those races where it did, that says to me that Senna’s 2010 season cannot be discounted when assessing him for 2012.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.